Following an uproar over a new target practice game for iOS from the National Rifle Association, Apple has changed its App Store age rating from a benign "4+" to "12+" for "Frequent/Intense Realistic Violence." The updated rating may seem more appropriate than the original rating, but some critics feel the game itself should be banned from the App Store altogether.

NRA: Practice Range, as we noted Tuesday of this week, focuses on using guns to shoot inanimate targets. Some opponents argued that the timing of the release was a bad idea considering the politically charged discourse surrounding the recent Sandy Hook school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. Others felt that—despite the game's frequent references to responsible gun use—the original App Store rating of "4+" or "no objectionable content," went too far.

"According to the NRA, the app is intended for children as young as age four," Gizmodo wrote earlier this week. "It's really just a point-and-shoot game, but the fact that it's meant for kids is straight up stupid."

Though the NRA declined to comment on the situation, the group likely wasn't trying to suggest the app was "intended for children as young as age four." After all, the age ranges associated with App Store ratings aren't based on developers selecting a particular age range. Instead, developers are asked to fill out a matrix of certain potentially objectionable content themes, and whether those themes appear in "infrequent/mild" form or "frequent/intense" form. The age rating is dependent on how developers fill out this form. Some infrequent violence or crude humor might get a "9+" or "12+" rating, while frequent violence or sexual content might get a "17+" rating. If an app contains none of these themes, it gets a "4+" rating.

The NRA and developer MEDL Mobile may have felt the game didn't really contain any violence at all since the in-game targets are inanimate objects in a virtual shooting range. That could explain why the app was originally submitted as having "no objectionable content" and ended up with a "4+" rating.

It's not clear whether it was Apple or the NRA who ultimately changed the rating to address these concerns. (Apple did not respond to our requests for comment.) Still, shooting 3D models of real guns at realistic targets—some of which have special areas for the head and heart, like those at actual shooting ranges—could certainly be interpreted as "realistic violence." And a "12+" rating, meaning the game is accessible to teens, seems like a reasonable age range to learn about gun safety. After all, kids this same age are already mowing down virtual human targets in games like Black Ops 2, despite that game's "M for Mature, 17+" rating.

Despite the rating change, some critics of NRA: Practice Range want the game banned, period. An online petition, which so far has over 1,800 signatures, calls on Apple to remove the game from the App Store.

"The National Rifle Association's new app NRA: Practice Range is an insult to the victims of gun violence, having been launched on the one month anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting," the petition reads. "Out of respect for the victims and to signal Apple's support for common sense measures to help end gun violence, we call on you to rescind your approval of this shameless new product."

Violent video games are often cited as a cause of increased gun violence; even the NRA itself pointed to "vicious, violent video games" such as Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat, and Splatterhouse in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shootings. And while the Obama administration has asked the CDC to study what effects violent video games may have on predilection to violence, so far there is little data to support a link between violent video games and actual gun violence.

Additionally, NRA: Practice Range claims to spread a little "common sense" about gun use, encouraging players to "always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction" and "always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use," for instance. It doesn't seem logically consistent to ask Apple to ban NRA's game while allowing countless others—some of which use virtual people as targets—to stand. Despite the controversy, it doesn't seem likely that Apple will remove the app anytime soon.

Promoted Comments

I played Duck Hunt on my 8-bit Nintendo when I was a little kid. Don't remember the exact age, but it was young. Had the Nintendo Zapper controller that looked like a slightly-space-age handgun that I'd point at the TV and shoot with. As far as I can tell, this game is less violent than Duck Hunt. It certainly isn't more violent.

The only reason people are upset is because the NRA is involved, not because of the content of the game itself. And not liking a game's publisher is not a valid reason for increasing the recommended age of the game, or worse, removing the game from the app store entirely.

Still, shooting 3D models of real guns at realistic targets—some of which have special areas for the head and heart, like those at actual shooting ranges—could certainly be interpreted as "realistic violence."

Only if target practice on paper targets in real life is also considered violent.

I played Duck Hunt on my 8-bit Nintendo when I was a little kid. Don't remember the exact age, but it was young. Had the Nintendo Zapper controller that looked like a slightly-space-age handgun that I'd point at the TV and shoot with. As far as I can tell, this game is less violent than Duck Hunt. It certainly isn't more violent.

The only reason people are upset is because the NRA is involved, not because of the content of the game itself. And not liking a game's publisher is not a valid reason for increasing the recommended age of the game, or worse, removing the game from the app store entirely.

I'm willing to bet you don't see the same people that are calling for this game to be banned also calling for the Modern Combat games to be pulled. Ya know, the ones where you shoot actual people instead of targets?

Well it's not like this app was only conceived of after the latest calls for gun control. It obviously took more than a month to develop and wind it's way through Apple's approval system. And I'm sure it was Apple who decided on which day it would drop, not the NRA. It's well within the realm of promoting gun safety and responsible gun ownership.

I think what we're seeing here is the backlash brought on by the NRA's political efforts having far outpaced it's gun safety efforts. Most people these days only see them as a lobbying group. And there is nobody to blame for that but the NRA.

Regardless of the rating, the parents need to be responsible for determining what is and is not appropriate for their children. Personally, I think gun safety needs to be taught in elementary schools. Since there are 90 guns per hundred people in the US, one should be educated about their associated dangers.

Regardless of the rating, the parents need to be responsible for determining what is and is not appropriate for their children. Personally, I think gun safety needs to be taught in elementary schools. Since there are 90 guns per hundred people in the US, one should be educated about their associated dangers.

My wonderful state of NJ certainly does not have a 9:10 gun to person ratio, and so I don't find it necessary to ever educate myself about the associated dangers of owning a gun. In fact, it's the association with danger that keeps my interest elsewhere.

If you have kids, your interest should be gun safety, regardless if the ratio is 1:10 or 100:10 in the Garden State.

Regardless of the rating, the parents need to be responsible for determining what is and is not appropriate for their children. Personally, I think gun safety needs to be taught in elementary schools. Since there are 90 guns per hundred people in the US, one should be educated about their associated dangers.

My wonderful state of NJ certainly does not have a 9:10 gun to person ratio, and so I don't find it necessary to ever educate myself about the associated dangers of owning a gun. In fact, it's the association with danger that keeps my interest elsewhere.

And for those people who want to learn the State almost always has some sort of instructional class that is either cheap of free of charge (for the class itself, the cost of driving to get there is another matter). Most States already support teaching citizens firearm safety.

Guns are not the real problem. Mental people with guns are the problem. But thinking of seriously complicated issues like that takes real work. The public nor the politicians want to do that. Guns and violent media are the easiest scapegoats. They make great targets. This has been happening for decades now. What else is new? Round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.

John Is My Name wrote:

fobsquad wrote:

Golgatha wrote:

Regardless of the rating, the parents need to be responsible for determining what is and is not appropriate for their children. Personally, I think gun safety needs to be taught in elementary schools. Since there are 90 guns per hundred people in the US, one should be educated about their associated dangers.

My wonderful state of NJ certainly does not have a 9:10 gun to person ratio, and so I don't find it necessary to ever educate myself about the associated dangers of owning a gun. In fact, it's the association with danger that keeps my interest elsewhere.

If you have kids, your interest should be gun safety, regardless if the ratio is 1:10 or 100:10 in the Garden State.

Whenever some nut job murders their wife and kids with a hammer, nobody ever rages about Bob the Builder toys with real hammer action being sold to kids the next day.

This is just crazy.

Because hammers are designed for another purpose. What's a gun designed to do?

To shoot delicious wildlife?....

Correct. A gun is designed to kill.

Nonsense, gnus are designed to consume the grasses of their native Africa, and to withstand the lengthy migration they frequently make to find areas with available grass and surface water to sustain their... oh, wait, misread your post, nevermind.

I think other have said it, but the problem is the NRA's repsonses have been badly fumbled.

It certainly isn't the most violent game on the market, but of course if you are going to point your finger at video games/media, putting out a first person shooter at the very same time is a bad idea.

Regardless of the rating, the parents need to be responsible for determining what is and is not appropriate for their children. Personally, I think gun safety needs to be taught in elementary schools. Since there are 90 guns per hundred people in the US, one should be educated about their associated dangers.

My wonderful state of NJ certainly does not have a 9:10 gun to person ratio, and so I don't find it necessary to ever educate myself about the associated dangers of owning a gun. In fact, it's the association with danger that keeps my interest elsewhere.

Just because you don't own a gun, doesn't mean your kid (or let's say my kid) will never come across one, or God forbid, have a friend be unsafe with one in his presence. If my son's friend was being unsafe with an improperly stored gun, my son knows what to do and has a very healthy respect for the dangers associated with mishandling firearms.

Regardless of the rating, the parents need to be responsible for determining what is and is not appropriate for their children. Personally, I think gun safety needs to be taught in elementary schools. Since there are 90 guns per hundred people in the US, one should be educated about their associated dangers.

My wonderful state of NJ certainly does not have a 9:10 gun to person ratio, and so I don't find it necessary to ever educate myself about the associated dangers of owning a gun. In fact, it's the association with danger that keeps my interest elsewhere.

And for those people who want to learn the State almost always has some sort of instructional class that is either cheap of free of charge (for the class itself, the cost of driving to get there is another matter). Most States already support teaching citizens firearm safety.

Ironically, most of that education is provided by materials developed by the NRA and given by certified NRA instructors.

OK, so you suggest my mentality may change when I have kids, this is true. But suppose it doesn't change, and I still do not ever plan to be near guns (Yes, even if it means being unable to defend my family from certain dangers). Why should my interest be in gun safety? I'm interested in peace.

You completely missed the point. You need to know gun safety so you can teach your kids what to do if they ever encounter a gun. Like at a friend's house, for example.

Regardless of the rating, the parents need to be responsible for determining what is and is not appropriate for their children. Personally, I think gun safety needs to be taught in elementary schools. Since there are 90 guns per hundred people in the US, one should be educated about their associated dangers.

My wonderful state of NJ certainly does not have a 9:10 gun to person ratio, and so I don't find it necessary to ever educate myself about the associated dangers of owning a gun. In fact, it's the association with danger that keeps my interest elsewhere.

If you have kids, your interest should be gun safety, regardless if the ratio is 1:10 or 100:10 in the Garden State.

Why gun safety? (wait, don't twist my words just yet)If I don't ever plan on holding or using a gun, why do I need to learn gun safety?

OK, so you suggest my mentality may change when I have kids, this is true. But suppose it doesn't change, and I still do not ever plan to be near guns (Yes, even if it means being unable to defend my family from certain dangers). Why should my interest be in gun safety? I'm interested in peace.

If you never intend on being voluntarily around a firearm AND you don't have kids, fine, your choice. However, if you have kids, and you still never intend on being voluntarily around a firearm, that doesn't mean your kid will never be in that position (over at a friend's house and such). I mean, it's still your kid, and your choice, but it would be pretty irresponsible not to pass on some firearm safety tid-bits to your child....even if that safety advice is as simple as, "Get away from there and tell an adult."

Regardless of the rating, the parents need to be responsible for determining what is and is not appropriate for their children. Personally, I think gun safety needs to be taught in elementary schools. Since there are 90 guns per hundred people in the US, one should be educated about their associated dangers.

My wonderful state of NJ certainly does not have a 9:10 gun to person ratio, and so I don't find it necessary to ever educate myself about the associated dangers of owning a gun. In fact, it's the association with danger that keeps my interest elsewhere.

If you have kids, your interest should be gun safety, regardless if the ratio is 1:10 or 100:10 in the Garden State.

Why gun safety? (wait, don't twist my words just yet)If I don't ever plan on holding or using a gun, why do I need to learn gun safety?

OK, so you suggest my mentality may change when I have kids, this is true. But suppose it doesn't change, and I still do not ever plan to be near guns (Yes, even if it means being unable to defend my family from certain dangers). Why should my interest be in gun safety? I'm interested in peace.

That's fine and I'm interested in peace and logic prevailing in the world. What I'm advocating is that firearm education should be part of elementary school curriculum. Just like you'd teach about the dangers of drowning, electrocution, how to handle strangers, etc., your kid may need to handle the situation of what to do if your friend comes out of their parents room to show you their parent's new gun. Now, an adult knows better, but a child needs to be taught. Unfortunately they need to have a plan in place for what to do if a lunatic comes into a school with a gun as well. The more you know about the dangers of the real world as a child, the safer that child will be.